Files
Abstract
How an academic staff person responds to a student disclosure of sexual abuse can play a significant role in a survivor’s healing and recovery process.
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that influenced the academic staff’s intention to respond appropriately to student disclosures of sexual violence. In Phase 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven academic educators with expertise in campus sexual violence to collect qualitative feedback on the appropriateness of the vignette and survey questions developed for the second Phase. Phase 2 consisted of a cross-sectional survey of 166 academic professionals (80% white and female). Participants were randomly assigned to 2 (alcohol vs. non-alcohol use) x 2 (resistance strategy: freeze vs. fight back) sexual assault vignette survey. Based on the Integrated Behavioral Model, the survey measures four predictor variables: personal agency (self-efficacy), attitudes (rape myth acceptance), knowledge of available campus policies and resources, and organizational constraints. They were used to assess whether academic staff’s identification of the encounter as sexual assault and intentions to respond appropriately to a student disclosure varied depending on the vignette. This study also explored academic staffs’ experience with student disclosures of sexual violence, as well as the
changes they would like to implement at their college or university to improve the response to campus sexual violence. A Chi-square test, ANOVA, and multiple regression analysis were used for the quantitative analyses; thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.
The proportion of participants that identified the encounter as sexual assault did not differ by vignette conditions, and neither did academic staff’s intentions. Results for the multiple regression analysis were inconclusive. Academic staff reported high self-efficacy, lower levels of rape myth acceptance, strong intentions to respond appropriately, and knowledge of available campus resources and policies. Academic staff also reported a lack of support within their workplace related to campus sexual violence; qualitative results support this finding and emphasize the need for training and campus resources for student survivors. Findings from this study will be valuable to inform training for academic staff on responding to student disclosures of sexual violence.
The purpose of this study was to identify factors that influenced the academic staff’s intention to respond appropriately to student disclosures of sexual violence. In Phase 1, semi-structured interviews were conducted with seven academic educators with expertise in campus sexual violence to collect qualitative feedback on the appropriateness of the vignette and survey questions developed for the second Phase. Phase 2 consisted of a cross-sectional survey of 166 academic professionals (80% white and female). Participants were randomly assigned to 2 (alcohol vs. non-alcohol use) x 2 (resistance strategy: freeze vs. fight back) sexual assault vignette survey. Based on the Integrated Behavioral Model, the survey measures four predictor variables: personal agency (self-efficacy), attitudes (rape myth acceptance), knowledge of available campus policies and resources, and organizational constraints. They were used to assess whether academic staff’s identification of the encounter as sexual assault and intentions to respond appropriately to a student disclosure varied depending on the vignette. This study also explored academic staffs’ experience with student disclosures of sexual violence, as well as the
changes they would like to implement at their college or university to improve the response to campus sexual violence. A Chi-square test, ANOVA, and multiple regression analysis were used for the quantitative analyses; thematic analysis was used to analyze qualitative data.
The proportion of participants that identified the encounter as sexual assault did not differ by vignette conditions, and neither did academic staff’s intentions. Results for the multiple regression analysis were inconclusive. Academic staff reported high self-efficacy, lower levels of rape myth acceptance, strong intentions to respond appropriately, and knowledge of available campus resources and policies. Academic staff also reported a lack of support within their workplace related to campus sexual violence; qualitative results support this finding and emphasize the need for training and campus resources for student survivors. Findings from this study will be valuable to inform training for academic staff on responding to student disclosures of sexual violence.